Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/172

 § 178.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. thereon in a proper manner. 1 And the measure of this com- pensation is the difference between the fair market value of the whole tract before and after the railroad is built upon the strip taken. 2 Thus, when the construction of a railroad through a farm or other tract of land renders the use or cultivation of the remaining portions more inconvenient and expensive, this is an element of damage. 3 1 Bangor & P. R. R. Co. v. Mc- Comb, 60 Me. 290; Hooper v. Savan- nah, etc., R. R. Co., 69 Ala. 529; Robbins v. Milwaukee & H. R. R. Co., 6 Wis. 636; Cincinnati & S. Ry. Co. v. Longworth, 30 O. St. 108; Wyandotte K. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Waldo, 70 Mo. 629; Raleigh & A. Air Line R. R. Co. p. Wicker, 74 N. C. 220; Virginia & T. R. R. Co. v. Henry, 8 Nev. 165; White Water Valley R. R. Co. v. McClure, 29 Ind. 536; Baltimore P. & C. R. R. Co. v. Lansing, 52 Ind. 229; Hartshorn v. B. C. R. & N. R. Co., 52 Iowa, 613; St. Louis, etc., R. R. v. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167; Texas & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Matthews, 60 Tex. 215. 2 Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 95 Pa. St. 426; Pittsburgh V. & C. Ry. Co. o. Bentley, 88 Pa. St. 179; Danville H. & W. R. R. Co. o. Gearhart, 81* Pa. St. 260; She- nango & A. R. R. Co. v. Braham, 79 Pa. St. 447; Hornstein v. Atlantic & Gt. W. R. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 87; Harvey v. Lackawanna & B. R. R. Co., 47 Pa. St. 428; East Pennsyl- vania R. R. Co. v. Hottenstein, 47 Pa. St. 28; Watson v. Pittsburgh & C. R. R. Co., 37 Pa. St. 469; Schuyl- kill Navigation Co. v. Thoburn, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 411; Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. R. Co., 2 Iowa, 288 ; Sater v. Burlington, etc., Plank Road Co., 1 Iowa, 386; Brooks v. Davenport & St. P. R. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 99; Page v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 70 111. 324; Bangor & P. R. R. Co. v. 152 McComb, 60 Me. 290; Ham v. Wis- consin I. & N. Ry. Co., 61 Iowa, 716; Black River, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bar- nard, 9 Hun (N. Y.), 104; Fleming v. Chicago D. & M. R. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 353; Powers v. Hazelton, etc., Ry. Co., 33 O. St. 429. Compare St. Louis J. & S. R. R. Co. v. Kirby, 104 111. 345; St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167; Reisner v. Atchison, etc., R. R. Co, 27 Kan. 382; Henderson, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 173; Price v. Milwaukee & St. Louis Ry. Co., 27 Wis. 98; Cincinnati & S. Ry. Co. v. Longworth, 30 O. St. 108; Hatch v. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 35 Vt. 49; S. C, 28 Vt. 142; Par- ker v. Boston & M. R. R., 3 Cush. (Mass.) 107; Proprietors of Locks and Canals v. Nashua & L. R. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385. 3 Tucker v. Massachusetts Central R. R., 118 Mass. 546; Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. Ry. Co., 103 Mass. 1; McReynolds v. Burlington & O. R. Ry. Co., 106 111. 152; Robbins v. Mil- waukee & H. R. R. Co., 6 Wis. 636; St. Louis, etc., R. R. v. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167; Watson v. Pittsburgh & C. R. R. Co., 37 Pa. St. 469; Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 127; White Water Valley R. R. Co., v. McClure, 29 Ind. 536; Baltimore P. & C. R. R. Co. v. Lansing, 52 Ind. 229; Missouri Pacific R'y Co. v. Hays, 15 Neb. 224; Raleigh, etc., R. R. Co. v. Wicker, 74 N. C. 220. Compare Atchison & D. Ry. Co. v. Lyons, 24